There is no conclusive evidence whether people are "born" homosexual or not. Some speak of a "gay" gene, but its not identified, and is counter to Nature, for the simple and undenyable reason that gays cant reproduce...and that the idea of nature. Some say its nurture, a conditioned behaviour, some say its an illness, probably a mental one.

BUT we do know that GOD would not endorse homosexual behaviour, either in the old, nor in the New Testament. So why would he want Homosexuals to marry? Marriage is a symbolic action depicting a sacred union. The union is between Church and Christ, between all the faithful belivers and GOD. Its pure and without sin. The symbolic gesture cant really be indorsed with anything other then a man and a woman

If homosexuals must get married, what is wrong with a civil partnership? nothing..and even if they do get married...like I said before...you can CALL it what you want...but without it being endorsed by GOD, it is NOT a marriage

Just because you are tempted to sin, doesnt mean you must sin. You have choice NOT to. You cant accidently have homosexual sex, you cant accidentaly cheat on your spouse...and you certainly cant accidentally marry against GODs wishes and believe it to be anything other then a big sham

What are they, the grand authority on all history? I guess what I'm getting at tho is that they are a little bias when it comes to certain histories. They tend to lean too far in one direction and lose objectivity. Would you agree?

Buzzard:
While it may state that in the bible, the bible was written by fallible men and used to control mankind and to set an agenda. There are many many parts of the original bible that were omitted throughout the many rewritings and translations of it. The bible uses many stories from many different cultures. There is no proof the the bible is the word of god.

Quote:

NateR:
That is your opinion, but the evidence says otherwise.

Really? Do you care to share any of your evidence? I'd really like to see some scientific evidence to back this up. I can show evidence of my claim, as it is pretty easy to find in libraries and on the internet if you are so inclined. Please lead this learning man in his quest for knowledge.

Is it your claim that the bible wasn't written by men and changed throughout the years, and that many parts of it were omitted? Is it also your claim that the Council of Nicaea never happened?

Quote:

NateR:

Simply because gay parents can't naturally reproduce.

So you still stick by this claim? I have shown you how your are in the wrong. Gay people can reproduce. Do you still say that they can't? Have you ever seen a redhead born to non redheads, or brown haired people having a blond child? Genetics doesn't necessarily pass down everything into the first generation.

Quote:

NateR:
Actually marriage was created by GOD, as documented in Genesis chapter 2. So it existed alongside the first two humans

Quote:

Buzzard:
Absolutely no proof of this.

Quote:

NateR:

That's not true, there is the written historical account. It's historical evidence, whether you consider it reliable or not. So you can't say there is "absolutely no proof" because there is proof, you just choose not to believe it.

Where is the first person account of an actual witness to this event? Where is the proof? It's great if you believe it, but don't go trying to say that this is fact unless you can offer something of substance to substantiate your claim. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

Really? Do you care to share any of your evidence? I'd really like to see some scientific evidence to back this up. I can show evidence of my claim, as it is pretty easy to find in libraries and on the internet if you are so inclined. Please lead this learning man in his quest for knowledge.

Most of my information comes from actual books, so I'll have to look around to see if there is anything reliable on the internet that talks about this.

The first thing that comes to mind is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were scrolls that were lost for over a thousand years and rediscovered in the 1950s. They contained Hebrew manuscripts for many books of the Old Testament. The interesting part about that is, even though they were 1000 years old, when translated they still matched up nearly word for word with modern versions of those same books in Jewish AND Christian Bibles. If the books of the Bible could remain essentially unchanged over a millennium, even though the world's governments and nations had been in turmoil during those 1000 years, then it's not hard to believe that they could have been preserved for longer than that.

Also, we have the Jewish and Christian Bibles. The Jewish Bible is essentially the Christian Old Testament. The interesting part about that is they match up pretty well when you compare English translations. No other major world religions have such similar texts.

Then you'd have to read about the extreme standards of accuracy that the Jewish scribes were held to. They had to copy the manuscripts that made up the Torah (the first five books in the Bible) word for word. In fact, even word for word wasn't good enough, they had to perfectly replicate even the decorations on the letters. A single mistake would cause the entire scroll to the thrown out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Is it your claim that the bible wasn't written by men and changed throughout the years, and that many parts of it were omitted? Is it also your claim that the Council of Nicaea never happened?

My claim is that the Bible was written by GOD through men. In the same way that a book is written by a man through a pencil, pen, keyboard, etc. The Council of Nicaea is an established historical fact, however, if you believe that GOD is ultimately in control of how His Word is preserved, then He would be guiding such a council to make sure that they don't eliminate anything necessary or add anything heretical.

Also, that council had a method of verifying the authenticity of the books and there were many books removed simply because they could not be verified as historically accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzard

So you still stick by this claim? I have shown you how your are in the wrong. Gay people can reproduce. Do you still say that they can't? Have you ever seen a redhead born to non redheads, or brown haired people having a blond child? Genetics doesn't necessarily pass down everything into the first generation.

Actually, a gay person can reproduce, but a gay couple CANNOT reproduce. If a homosexual man and a lesbian have sex, then that is a heterosexual partnership. I never claimed that homosexuals were sterile. I simply claimed that two men cannot have a child and two women cannot have a child by natural means. Of course, both of the lesbians are still capable of getting pregnant and both of the homosexual men are still capable of fertilizing an egg. HOWEVER, if Jack and Bruce are married, then they cannot produce a child, by natural means, that is a mix of Jack and Bruce's DNA. Reproduction requires an egg and a sperm, neither Jack nor Bruce can produce an egg to fertilize. Same with a lesbian couple (we'll call them Priscilla and Blair - mainly because I don't know any women by those names). Well they both have eggs to fertilize, but neither of them is capable of fertilizing the other's eggs. In both cases, a third party is required to provide sperm or an egg which in essence excludes one of the gay partners from the reproductive cycle. In other words, using natural methods of reproduction, one of the gay partners will not be able to contribute any genetic material to the offspring. THUS, gay partnerships cannot produce children in and of themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Where is the first person account of an actual witness to this event? Where is the proof? It's great if you believe it, but don't go trying to say that this is fact unless you can offer something of substance to substantiate your claim. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

Again, whether you consider it fact or not, it's still evidence. It's the testimony of a reliable eyewitness. GOD is perfect and incapable of lying, thus His account of the events can be considered reliable.

What are they, the grand authority on all history? I guess what I'm getting at tho is that they are a little bias when it comes to certain histories. They tend to lean too far in one direction and lose objectivity. Would you agree?

Yes I would agree. I see an American bias, due to it being an American owned station if I am correct. Also, the winners write the history. But yes, I do get the gist of what you are getting at.

indeed. Where is the moral code that he lives by, and on whose authority is it truthful

As I stated before, a lot of what I follow is written in the "Golden Rule." If it is good enough for many religions to follow and base codes of conduct by, shouldn't it be good enough for us non-believers too? I'm not saying that religions don't have some good lessons to be learned, but the lessons aren't solely belonging to religions, nor were necessarily founded by religions.